Ex parte CHIU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 1998

08200850 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 22, 1994. 1
According to applicant, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/945,185, filed November 19, 1992.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ANTHONY M. CHIU
_____________
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application 08/200,8501
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative
Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application No. 08/200,850
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 8.
The disclosed invention relates to a single contact for a
semiconductor device that is formed by an n x n array of
flexible conductive balls.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A contact for a semiconductor device, comprising:
a plurality of flexible conductive balls, in an nxn
array, n being a whole number greater than 1, each nxn array
forming a single contact; and
a flattened area on each conductive ball at which said
conductive ball is secured to the semiconductor device contact
area.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Thomas el al. (Thomas) 4,369,458 Jan. 18,
1983
Tsukagoshi et al. (Tsukagoshi)5,001,542 Mar. 19,
1991
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application No. 08/200,850
3
being anticipated by Thomas.
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application No. 08/200,850
4
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Tsukagoshi.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
Turning first to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection, the
examiner states (Answer, page 3) that:
In figure 4, Thomas et al. disclose a contact
for a semiconductor device including a plurality of
compressible, flexible conductive balls (106, 108,
110, 112), in an “nxn” array, n being a whole number
greater than 1 (such as 32, see column 6, lines 26-
44 and column 10, lines 26-43), each “nxn” forming a
single contact (see figure 5); and a “flattened”
area on each conductive ball (106, 108, 110, 112)
secured to the semiconductor device (80 and 100).
Appellant argues (Brief, page 3) that Thomas “lacks any
teachings of using flexible balls to construct a contact for a
semiconductor device.” We agree. Thomas uses one metallic
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application No. 08/200,850
5
cell contact (e.g., cell contact 106) to form a “single”
contact, and not “a plurality of flexible conductive balls” as
claimed. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1
and 5 is reversed.
We agree with the examiner (Answer, page 4) that
“Tsukagoshi et al. disclose a compressible conductive ball
composition (3) including a flexible elastomer material (8)
such as rubber coated with a highly conductive metallic
material (9) such as gold.” With this teaching in mind, the
examiner is of the opinion (Answer, page 4) that “it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art at
the time the invention was made to use a conductive, flexible
ball coated with a highly conductive material in Thomas et al.
to obtain a pressure deformable ball free from dispersion of
connection resistance and applicable to connection of minute
areas of a semiconductor chip such as taught by Tsukagoshi et
al.” Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the
examiner is correct, we are still left with the fact that the
single contact 106 in Thomas, albeit now flexible in
accordance with the teachings of Tsukagoshi, is still not a
“single” contact made of a “plurality of flexible conductive
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application No. 08/200,850
6
balls.” In summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1
through 8 is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application No. 08/200,850
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claims 1 through 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0357
Application No. 08/200,850
8
B. Peter Barndt
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
Patent Department, M/S 219
P.O. Box 655474
Dallas, TX 75265